A CATHOLIC bishop has sparked controversy by suggesting that, if the Scottish Government truly believed in equality, it could extend legislation on same-sex marriage to encompass bigamy and even incest.

Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen asked why equality did not extend to "nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles" and why men could not have two wives, adding such scenarios were not freaks of nature but might in fact occur in Scottish parishes.

...

In an interview with the Scottish Catholic Observer (SCO), Bishop Gilbert, the first to be appointed in Scotland by Pope Benedict, said: "You can't have a meal without food and you don't have marriage without a man and a woman. This isn't just social convention. It's not something any Government can change. It's a fact of life.

"The truth is that a Government can pass any legislation it likes, it can legislate to say everything with four legs is a table, even when it's a dog and not a horse, but that won't make it so. Why is it all right for a man to marry another man, but not all right for him to marry two women? If we really want equality, why does that equality not extend to nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles? And, if you say that such things don't happen, that they are mere freaks of nature, extreme examples dreamed up for the sake of argument, I say you need to spend more time in the parish."

He added: "As Bishop of Aberdeen, I know there are gay people among the community of the Church. I promise I will always respect and love them and uphold them in their relationship with the God who loves them. But I won't marry them. It just can't be done."

Getting government OUT of the public school would be a great start, along with burning all the Marxist-filled, Billy Ayers-type curricula with Sex Ed dripping from it to destroy the innocence and morality of our children.

Special Rights for some-—and promotion of lies in schools-—Heather has two mommies-—Christians are Bigots-—Sodomy is good—the Founding Fathers were evil-—have got to be eliminated from the formation of Worldview in the majority of our children, if we don’t want this country to collapse.

Critical Theory is a Leftist tool to destroy Western Civilization. They have to kill God (Christianity) to take over the World. They wrote about it-—research Cultural Marxism. Divide and Conquer. All identity groups are Communists Fronts-—like the Homosexual movement, Unions, Feminist groups, La Raza, etc. Even the Democrats have been infiltrated and now controlled by Marxists. It is their MO.

Sodomy should always be considered a Vice—a sin, which it is. You can never legitimize that activity by creating “civil unions”. It is the slippery slope always-—like we see today with the “marriage” movement.

Employers should have a right to discriminate against certain behaviors. That is the basis of Religious Freedom.

You should never have to put up with men and women mocking God, esp. in front of your children.

Yes. The objective is utterly transparent at this point, and "gay marriage" is just one weapon in the arsenal. The ginned up furor generated in response to Chik-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy's comments (with the associated accusations of "hate") was a clear and deliberate attack on the Bible.

The recent (20th Century) Mexican Marxist bloody persecution of the Church south of the border should serve as a warning of what can occur when leftist totalitarians contrive to seize power.

Seduced by Marxist errors and Masonic superstitions, revolutionaries declared war on the Catholic Church. They seized control of the government and, in 1917, wrote a socialist constitution packed with anticlerical articles with the goal of marginalizing the Church's influence  if not driving her from Mexico altogether.

Backed by the full force of federal law, the Revolutionary Government confiscated all Church property, including hospitals, monasteries, convents, and schools. Priests were forbidden to wear their clerics in public. They were not allowed to express opinions on politics, even in private conversation. They could not seek justice in the Mexican courts. To take a religious vow became a criminal act.

Tolerance is NOT acceptance. It is NOT saying, “two men or two women together are no different than a man and a woman”. Tolerance does not change laws and definitions .

This is what angers the gays: They KNOW in a democracy they are tolerated. They openly scorn it, and want total acceptance. So perhaps I just undid my own adage, as honey tastes like vinegar to them now in any case.

Proper family formation is essential for the healthy continuation of society and civilization. A special social recognition and support of those people that wish to begin families is important.

Agreed, and I think, a major reason for the seeming generational split in who supports homosexual marriage. Many young people, including those who consider themselves Christian, don't see what's wrong with homosexual marriage, because they see marriage as being about feelings, love and sex. What's interesting is that many of the young people who support homosexual marriage have no interest in marrying themselves. They have a very jaded view of the institution, caused by the frequency of divorce over the past 30 years, so they think "why not" when homosexuals demand their 'right' to be married.

Much of this is because of the way the twenty and thirty somethings are viewing children. Many of them see children as impediments to their fun, or their careers, etc., so they don't see marriage and children as being connected, anymore. Easy access to contraception, and the general liberal attitude toward sex that has been created by the media have contributed to this. Easy divorce, and what they see of how heterosexuals have damaged the whole notion of marriage has only contributed to their ideas.

Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen asked why equality did not extend to "nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles" and why men could not have two wives, adding such scenarios were not freaks of nature but might in fact occur in Scottish parishes.

LOL - the good Bishop left off some of the folks in San Francisco who 'love' horses... Yep, might even want to 'marry' one and claim the animal as a dependent at tax time... Lots of groupings other than a 'man and a woman'.

How about a woman who wants to marry 300 potential 'immigrants' from third world countries? Who can deny true love? Especially when each of her 'husbands' give her a $5,000 diamond ring?

The government does have the obligation to regulate things, but based on the fundamental law of that society. Our Constitution is based on natural law, and needless to say, “gay marriage” has no part in that!

The real interest of the state in marriage is actually not the social good of children, but property: who has title to it, how it is transmitted, and even who it can tax on that property.

Unmarried persons are free to leave their property to anybody they want to leave it to, free to hold it, free to give it away if they want, and certainly are available for paying taxes, so the state has absolutely no need to declare that they are “married” in order to pursue its interest in their property. However, if the state wants to create some system where unmarried persons (two gay men, or even something like an older parent living with an adult child) can apply for a “household” status, say, this could solve what gays claim to be the problem of unfair tax treatment, etc.

In other words, there is no need for the state to get involved in the sexual aspect of marriage; if they want to create some other practical institution, fine, but it’s not marriage and they can’t force the churches to accept it as such.

And gays have always had their faux weddings and other ceremonies, if they want to accompany the legal status with something more romantic, shall we say.

But that’s not what they want. They want to destroy the Church (and I include in that term other orthodox Christian churches) and they have seen that this is a way they can use the power of the state to do so.

"As Bishop of Aberdeen, I know there are gay people among the community of the Church. I promise I will always respect and love them and uphold them in their relationship with the God who loves them. But I won't marry them. It just can't be done."

Homosexual people are not some special category, hell-bound unlike any other. We must all repent of our sins. Not just sexual sins, but any sins

The first stone at the institution of marriage was lobbed by heterosexuals, with decriminalization of adultery -- a clear crime of fraud and physical endangerment, -- easy divorce without a defined fault, easy remarriage, normalization of premarital sex and commonplace use of contraception.

“...otherwise, you will have a secular society with its own definition, and a Church with different ones.”

In my opinion, at least in the modern era, the Church can’t punish you beyond kicking you out if one disagrees with whatever their take on marriage happens to be, and their take usually changes much less than the state. That danger will always there with the state’s involvement, and their definition just keeps changing all the time—and for the worse as far as I can think of.

But it is a moot point, as the state will never divest itself from the institution. Statists won’t give it up because it gives massive control of the culture for their own ends, and homosexualists because they need a way to punish those who don’t buy into their nonsense.

"Tolerance" has unfortunately only served to embolden these activists, and has permitted them to launch aggressive campaigns (using our legal system and the media as tools) with the intent of relentlessly pushing the envelope until those who oppose their goal of eradicating Christian ethics from the public square are pushed completely into the closet. Now our children are subjected to homosexual PDA's everywhere they turn, while the schools and media are busy attempting to indoctrinate them in favor of unnatural behavior.

How can there be a reasonable middle ground when one side is so relentlessly determined to dominate the other, and deprive them of their God-given rights?

"And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven".

In my daily activities I encounter many such couples, including some people of whom I am quite fond and have no desire to harm or see harm come to them. That however does not change the reality that their behavior choices are

Funny you should say that--I found out just last night that Adam Smith, The Bully of Chick-fil-a, may be an atheist and his whole ill-conceived rant was really an atheistic attack on CFA's Christian CEO and principles.

Pray that Mr. Smith and his family will turn to Christ and His saving grace.

Much of this is because of the way the twenty and thirty somethings are viewing children. Many of them see children as impediments to their fun, or their careers, etc., so they don't see marriage and children as being connected, anymore. Easy access to contraception, and the general liberal attitude toward sex that has been created by the media have contributed to this. Easy divorce, and what they see of how heterosexuals have damaged the whole notion of marriage has only contributed to their ideas.

Yes!

And now since even unmarried people can adopt children, the whole concept of marriage (between a man and a woman) to (pro)create children is further diluted.

I've long argued for two separate institutions, neither of which has anything to do with the sexual orientation of the people or is an attempt in any way by the government to regulate people's sex lives.

The first is marriage, a permanent contract between a man and a woman (actually between those two and the rest of society) designed to facilitate child-rearing and stable family units. Difficult to get into and even harder to terminate. This was the subject of my earlier post.

The second we could call “civil unions” that any two adults can enter into. Simple to get into (i.e. checking a box and putting a name on your annual tax return paperwork) and even easier to terminate. These are temporary, lasting perhaps only a year or two and then must be renewed. If not renewed they simply expire. A man and a woman could do this, two men, two women, a Dad and his son, etc. It has NOTHING to do with sex or procreation. Its purpose is to allow two people not interested in a lifelong commitment to still be able to face a tough world by pooling their resources, thereby minimizing the number of folks in our society relying on charity to get by.

The laws governing these institutions would be tailored to their individual purposes: property, inheritance, taxes, etc.

This arrangement gets government out of the bedroom. The people and our various churches can continue to regulate sexual behavior with marriage as we've always done, but the government stays out of that side of things.

Government can define a table as anything with 4 legs including animals - good one.

Here is some background.

Senator Moynihan in 1994 "Defining Deviancy Down: How We've Become Accustomed to Alarming Levels of Crime and Destructive Behavior." :

"Asserts that the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond levels the community can afford to recognize and that society has been redefining deviancy to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized and accepting as normal behavior that considered abnormal by earlier standards. Redefinition is categorized as altruistic, opportunistic, and normalizing. "

77
posted on 08/05/2012 11:49:26 AM PDT
by ex-snook
(without forgiveness there is no Christianity)

Yes, absolutely essential and terribly important to recognize the trend of defining deviancy down.

One can see this at work in the amount of couples (straight) nowadays who say things like, “My girlfriend and I are expecting a baby” (no plans to marry) or couples co-habitating openly (very bad idea). (The way some females dress is another- but I better not go there.)

Also some women get pregnant and have no idea who the father is and don’t care and go ahead and cheerfully announce the pending birth of the child (seen in my own family).

Recall in one of my college classes too in my undergrad days a Prof pointed out the people who proudly say, “Just been through my second messy divorce” when formerly was viewed as a failure, not an accomplishment.

Gay agenda is part and parcel of this.

“...accepting as normal behavior that considered abnormal by earlier standards. Redefinition is categorized as altruistic, opportunistic, and normalizing.”

“John Nolte, an editor for the conservative news site breitbart.com says the ad is part of a broader attempt by liberals to remove the stigma of bestiality.
‘You can laugh and say it’s just a joke, but through a war of inches, Hollywood continues its assault to define deviancy down and to normalize destructive behavior. Humor is an excellent way to get us used to and to take the shock value out of something hideous and immoral,’ he writes.”

"The first stone at the institution of marriage was lobbed by heterosexuals... The homosexuals are simply scavenging on the ruins.

You'e exactly right, annalex. It was a decayed heterosexual society that broke down the "definition of marriage" so that it was temporary, serial, and sterile. At that point, it was exactly what gays were looking for: the gratification of adults, with all else being optional.

In particular: contracepting couples have already turned sex into an infertile-by-design, "unnatural act." They are heterosexual gays.

86
posted on 08/05/2012 2:35:07 PM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
( "Let us commit ourselves and each other and all our lives unto Christ our God.".)

Certainly, Mrs. Don-O, I don’t have any more hope for unrepentant fornicators or revilers than I do for unrepentant homosexuals. Repentance is key and involves a change in behavior, not mere lip service.

Perfection can’t be expected, on the other hand, no man can achieve it.

The spirit of this age, however, is to elevate homosexuals to some sort of sacred tragic victim, rather than unapologetic rebellious sinners.

I agree Scott. Really troubling with the dyke-like looking teacher and the young girl. Sick on so many levels. The other one your sent did say it wasn’t an actual Skittles ad, but I imagine something might crop up soon like that. And I agree; there’s an agenda!

94
posted on 08/05/2012 3:54:32 PM PDT
by mlizzy
(And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell others not to kill? --MT)

“The bible does NOT say that homosexuals go to hell. It says that sodomites go to hell. If you cant grasp the distinction, you dont belong on this thread.”

Well, enlighten me. Is a sodomite different than a homosexual?

1 Corinthians 6:8-10

8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS,[a] nor SODOMITES, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. “

To continue throughout one’s life buggering or being buggered is in defiance of God’s Law. It’s not incorrect to speculate on the future of one’s soul when the sinner dies unrepentant. Priests and rabbis do it all the time.

97
posted on 08/05/2012 6:56:58 PM PDT
by IbJensen
(If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed)

Two words are of interest here. "μαλακας" is literally translated by Young as "effeminate". It is a common swear in modern Greek; as any swear it applies to anything you don't particularly like, but the precise meaning is "one who masturbates", i.e. "jerk"; "μαλακια" refers to something stupid or worthless or deceptive. You can say, "Don't tell me malakies" i.e. don't lie to me.

The word is so important if you visit Greece, that it has two entries in English Wikipedia: Malakas and Malakia. The second entry lists passive homosexuality as a possible meaning.

Observe that "αρσενοκοιται", literally, "male bed partners", and it is listed separately from "effeminates".

I quite agree that homosexual vice is a damnable sin, and that those who engage therein ought to be warned of hell, as we are all warned by Our Lord.

What I offer criticism of, is the offhand "Hell is for homos," which -- like most bumper-sticker-length aphorisms --- is troublesome because it fails to make a couple of important distinctions:

If "homos" is taken to mean "people who have a homosexual orientation," --- and that's often the meaning taken --- it's simply false. No kind of orientation in itself puts you in hell. Orientation is an attraction pattern, even a temptation pattern, but not a sin.

The phrase suggests a -- possibly unintended --- link between "hell" and "homo" only --- as if it this were the one hellish sin.

Consider covetousness. This is quite openly displayed and flagrantly encouraged all around us --- think of it, it's the "soul" of the advertising industry --- and one never encounters, on Free Republic anyway, a flip phrase like

"Hell is for the covetous".

Yet that is also Scriptural --- and of course I take it seriously.

We probably don't need to keep lobbing these particular issues back and forth, because I think we're actually in substantial agreement on these.

But imagine the uproar I'd kick up if I were to say

Hell is for those who bombed Hiroshima.

This being Hiroshima Day and all.

Yet that is equally true: target-equals-city bombing being, according to our religion, forbidden because it is indiscriminate killing, a damnable crime. The Church says we could know this from Natural Law; we ought to also know it from the 20+ times in Scripture where God says that the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination in His eyes.

Excusing homosexual vice is not a thing to which we FReepers are prone. Excusing other sins --- well, I should look to my own faults. I've been guilty of that.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.